论多民族国家的政治理念及其贡献--以中国多民族国家与美国民族-国家的比较为例

西方学者认为,当前的世界是一个由“民族-国家(nation-state)”构成的“国际体系”。随着工业资本主义的全球扩张,“民族-国家”体系也已经扩张到全球的每一个角落;“民族主义(nationalism)”迄今为止仍然是全球范围内影响最为深远、最具有号召力的政治口号之一。但中国作为一个特例,在经历了引进“民族主义”话语的时代以后,却最终选择了“多民族国家”的政治理念,并在现实运作中稳步发展,这表明“民族-国家”及其“民族主义”意识形态并非这个世界上的唯一选择。     

The Relevance of Modernity to Contemporary East Asia: An Outline

This article offers a framework for exploring the relevance of modernity to contemporary East Asia. I first examine different conceptualizations of modernity, paying special attention to Eisenstadt's influential concept of multiple modernities. Second, I point out the limitations and flaws of Eisenstadt's theory by drawing on nationalist politics in East Asia as an illustrative case. In particular, I examine the so-called “history perception problem,” which has been created by war and shaped by the legacies of war, to demonstrate the peculiar features of modernity in East Asia. Third, I use the works by three scholars as examples to show how intellectuals in China, South Korea, and Taiwan respond to the tensions between universalism and particularism, which, as a whole, reflect what can be called “East Asian modernity.” And finally, I try to respond to the controversial but fashionable question that is peculiar to East Asia: can modernity be overcome? It is argued that East Asia can be understood through the lens of modernity, and vice versa. Nowadays, modernity has become a global condition in both geographical and topological senses. It is not something to be overcome, but a condition that we all live in and should learn to live with, here and now.     

现代政治文化与民族国家治理

现代政治文化具有世俗性、自主性、开放性与融合性。民族国家治理是国家公共权力控制和引导政治、社会活动的运作行为。政治文化现代化与民族国家治理之间存在互动关系。现代政治文化对民族国家治理提供支撑与协调,民族国家的治理活动推动、引导政治文化现代化的发展。     

换一个角度看民族理论：从“民族-国家”到“国家-民族”的理论转型

对待中国现行的民族理论和民族政策,很多学者都言必称“民族—国家”理论。对此,我们需要换一个角度来思考。国家和民族之间包括三种具体关系：民族与民族（民族—民族）的关系、民族与国家（民族—国家）的关系和国家与民族（国家—民族）的关系。就国家和民族的关系而言,在探讨民族地区和少数民族发展中,我们需要找回“国家”,并在民族理论中给予“国家”居于民族之上的位置。我们认为,在“国家—民族”自上而下关系框架下,国家的角色处于主导地位,而民族则是从属于国家。中央与民族地区和少数民族之间的关系,是通过从中央到地方的“官本位”的“分级管理”“属地管理”和“分类管理”等一系列制度化的行政管理体系和实际运作机制来实现的。     

Civic-secular and ethnic nationalisms as bases of the nation-state: multiculturalism at the crossroads? 1

The dominant Eurocentric paradigm of the nation and the nation-state was premised on western historical experience that was indigenous to the west but claimed universality for the rest. Many post-colonial countries, particularly those that went through national liberation struggles, like India and China, with multi-ethnic mobilisations, established sovereign states. The nationalist leaders claimed the unity of nationhood for their culturally diverse countries (states), with their millennia-deep civilisational identity, compelling a new discourse on the untenability of the classic Eurocentric paradigm. The second development witnessed the inevitable cultural heterogenisation of the western countries premised on the expansion of the (immigrant) labour market through an ever-enveloping regime of economic liberalisation and world trade. The catharsis of the invasion of cheaper labour from culturally diverse countries, often native-displacing, resulted in western countries attempting to accommodate the emerging changing reality in the context of mono-cultural nations through the concept and policy of multiculturalism. In spite of this, western countries have been witness to intercultural violence, racial discrimination and threats of home grown terrorism. The paper seeks to distinguish between ‘pluralism’ and ‘multiculturalism’ and argues for a reformulation of the concept of the nation-state that will have greater applicability across states.     

Commercially arranged marriage and the negotiation of citizenship rights among Vietnamese marriage migrants in multiracial Singapore

Globalization and increased mobilities have multiplied cross-border transactions not only in the economic sphere but have also a major impact on human relationships of intimacy. This can be seen in the increased volume of differently mediated forms of international marriage, not just straddling ‘east’ and ‘west’, but within Asia and across different ethnicities and nationalities. International marriage raises a host of social issues for countries of origin and destination, including challenges relating to the citizenship status and rights of the marriage migrant. This paper examines the negotiation of citizenship rights in the case of commercially matched marriage migrants – namely Vietnamese women who marry Singaporean men and migrate to Singapore as ‘foreign brides’. While they are folded into the ‘family’ – what is often thought of as the basic building block of the nation in Asian societies – they are not necessarily accorded full incorporation into the ‘nation’ despite Singapore's claims to multiculturalism. This is particularly salient at a point when cross-nationality, cross-ethnicity marriages between Singapore citizens and non-citizens are on the increase, accounting for over a third of marriages registered in Singapore in recent years. Vietnamese women who marry Singaporeans are positioned within the nation-state's citizenship regime as dependents of Singaporean men, having to rely on the legitimacy of the marriage relationship as well as the whims of their husbands in negotiating their rights vis-à-vis the Singapore state. Drawing on interviews and ethnographic work with 20 Vietnamese women who are commercially matched marriage migrants, the paper first focuses on the vulnerable positions these women find themselves, particularly given difficulties in forging their own support networks as well as weaknesses of the civil society sector in what has been called an ‘illiberal democracy’ characterized by a political culture of ‘non-resistance’. The paper then goes on to examine the way they negotiate rights to residency/citizenship, work and children within webs of asymmetrical power relations within the family and the nation-state. We draw on our findings to show that citizenship is ‘a terrain of struggle’ within a multicultural nation-state shaped by social ideologies of gender, race and class and negotiated on an everyday basis within spheres of family intimacy.     

Two dynamics of globalization in the context of a sports mega-event: the case of UEFA EURO 2012 in Poland

ABSTRACT

The article uses the theoretical framework of Saskia Sassen’s two dynamics of globalization in order to analyse the relations between a nation-state and a non-state global actor when applying and preparing for a sports mega-event, namely UEFA Euro 2012 in Poland. The first dynamic of globalization is created by global institutions, organizations – such as global sport organizations, regimes, and processes. UEFA used the application process, and preparation, to confirm and consolidate its role as a global governor of an increasingly important area of globalization. The way Polish public institutions accommodated the UEFA requirements illustrates the second dynamic of globalization. The context of sports mega-events – ‘organized’ by global sports organizations and ‘hosted’ by nation-states – merges the two dynamics and makes it possible to emphasize the mechanisms involved in forming the new global order, defined by the complex interplay between the nation-state and non-state actors.     

From nation-state to global society: the changing paradigm of contemporary sociology

This paper discusses the strong criticism by Elias against the nation-state paradigm in sociology. Elias pointed his attention on sociologists of the twentieth century but particularly criticizes the analytical model of Parsons (AGIL), which seems to him an abstract combinatory of variables (pattern variables) without any references in social contexts. The sociology in the twentieth century is an apologetic of nation-state and, in Parsons, of the hegemonic role of the United States in the world. In fact, during the twentieth century many authors (historians and sociologists) tried to overcome the nation-state paradigm in the social sciences. The author of the paper analyses the contribution of Toynbee, Braudel, C. Schmitt, Huntington, Wallerstein and Hard–Negri. These attempts are based on different unit analysis: the civilization and its clash in the case of Toynbee and Huntington, the world economy in the case of Braudel and Wallerstein, and power in the case of C. Schmitt and Negri–Hardt. The author appreciates these attempts but his conclusion is that the concept of global society can better serve as unit analysis for a construction of a new paradigm in the social sciences.     

主权·统一·国族·集权·民主——论民族国家建构的五大构成要素

民族国家是“资本主义时期典型的正常的国家形式”。民族国家建构包含五个方面不可或缺的要素：独立主权是前提要素、国家统一是核心要素、国族塑造是本质要素、中央集权政府是关键要素、民主取向是价值要素。民族国家的构建和巩固,关键是在获得独立主权的前提下,寻求和处理好“人民-国家-民族-政府”四种要素之间的平衡。     

民族学的民族国家形态及其他——中国民族学史散论

本文围绕民族学/人类学的民族国家形态、民族学和中国的现代性、殖民主义和中国民族学等三个论题,结合中国民族学的发展史,对中国民族学知识的发展及其性质展开深入的理论探讨和反思。其中,对民族学知识中国形态的发展及其学术价值所作的细致分析,以及对现代性和殖民主义在中国民族学发展上的影响所给予的分析和评价,对理解中国民族学史的发展,提供了较为新颖的视角。